Re: Deprecation Warnings for currencies used in transaction?

On 01/02/2014 05:55 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> Elf, Thanks for the additional clarification. That "informational" use
> case still seems to me to be out-of-scope for web payments, and already
> available through many other venues.
Thanks Joseph for your fast replies :)

Possibly I just simply still struggle with fact that in RDF properties 
define their domain and range!!!

So I can just define somewhere independently such *notice* property (or 
find fitting one through something like plus define 
something like *DeprecationWarning* class, and then just use them with 
any resource of type com:Transaction?

Ha, maybe I can just reuse this property: 
looks like a close fit ;)

> What aspect of the use case you are describing cannot be easily done or
> found already?  See:
They all look like analysis of the *past*, while I would like that each 
individual can make visible one's own plans for our common *future*!

Comparing again to software components, one can monitor given system and 
plot nice charts of its performance based on those logs. Still if one 
upgrades some of dependencies in this system and developers of those 
components have *changed API* without giving any heads up (aka. 
deprecation warnings)... Those performance graphs didn't help at all 
with distinct issue related to clear and formal way of communicating 
what we plan to change in a future!

IMO Transacion/Transfer seem like very reasonable place to attach such 
warnings about used currency...

> Joseph Potvin
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> < <>>
> wrote:
>     Replies from Melvin and Joseph gave me impression that I made my
>     point quite unclear. Let me try again:
>     I don't expect Web Payments specs to take any opinionated position,
>     but only provide clear way for people using it to express *their*
>     opinion/intentions related to currencies they transfer. Let's maybe
>     imagine adding generic property com:notice which com:Transaction
>     could use, augmenting example from Web Payments spec:
>     {
>         "type": "Transaction",
>         "id": "
>     <>"__,
>         "amount": "7.65",
>         "currency": "USD",
>         "date": "2011-09-23T20:21:35Z",
>         "notice":[
>           {
>             "type": "DeprecationWarning",
>             "id":
>     "
>     <>"
>            }
>         ]
>     }
>     Having such external notice with only "@type" and "@id" embedded
>     might already solve this challenge! I also assume here that
>     transaction can only use single currency. Otherwise com:Transfer may
>     fit better.
>     Now to clarify my intention once again and provide very precise use
>     scenario: (possibly TL;DR)
>     To my understanding people using monetary currencies, based on
>     particular fictional tokens (not present in physical reality, like
>     all ISO 4217, Bitcoin, LETS etc.) when accepting them make
>     assumption that someone later on will also accept those tokens from
>     them in exchange for some real assets (present in physical reality).
>     Such person *can't do anything else with such symbolic tokens other
>     than transferring them to another peer*.
>     It only works as long as other people choose to keep accepting those
>     particular types of fictional tokens. Once less and less people
>     accept them they become less and less useful since number of people
>     who accept them in return for some real assets decreases.
>     I would like to address scenarios like this one:
>     * Given Alice has 10 000USD on her one and only 'conventional' bank
>     account
>     * And she already uses other available currencies (lets say outside
>     of ISO 4217 realm)
>     * And she aims to completely quit using USD within next 6 months
>     * When Alice transfers 50USD to another peer
>     * And she realizes that in 6 months she will not accept USD any more
>     * And she realizes that it will contribute to other people also
>     finding USD less useful
>     * And she wants to *play fair*
>     * Then she honestly warns peer receiving this transfer of 50USD
>     about her intentions and how they can affect this particular
>     transfered currency
>     * And she syndicates her DeprecationWarning with various public
>     trackers measuring popularity of given currencies
>     Hope I made myself easier to understand this time :)
>     On 01/02/2014 01:33 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>         Aloha o/
>         I would like to work on recommendation explaining how to issue
>         deprecation warnings for currencies of one's own choice. In case
>         someone
>         doesn't feel familiar with concept of deprecation, please just see
>         article on Wikipedia[1]
>         Big part of my work in last years focuses on supporting
>         development of
>         great diversity of currencies[2] with personal focus on non-monetary
>         currencies. Personally I already deprecated use of monetary
>         currencies
>         over 4 years ago, and as various alternatives become more
>         established I
>         would see such move as something everyone might realistically
>         consider
>         to make!
>         Now, to play it *fair*. I would like that people who still chose
>         to use
>         certain currencies (especially those specified in ISO 4217[3]), and
>         already plan to quit using them in very near future, while doing so
>         could issue proper deprecation warnings. Myself I will soon strictly
>         require issuing such warnings in situations when someone uses
>         any of ISO
>         4217 currencies, to acquire an asset with intention of making it
>         available to me / projects I work on (eg. registering a domain name,
>         buying train ticket etc.) I consider it *not fair* to transfer
>         certain
>         monetary currency, quit using it silently together with majority of
>         other people, and this way leave the other peer with a virtual
>         number
>         now useless in practice...
>         Looking at Web Payments: Commerce Vocabulary spec[4].
>         Transaction seems
>         to me like a proper place to include such warnings. At this
>         moment one
>         could possibly only put it in plain old rdfs:comment[5] which
>         has range
>         of rdfs:Literal. I would prefer that each warning has proper IRI and
>         links back to transaction (preferably even embedding it). Can we add
>         such feature to Commerce Vocabulary or I should look for a way to
>         shomehow extend it? PayeeRule also sounds like possible place to
>         mention
>         it as well!
>         Thank you for all suggestions :)
>         [1]
>         <>
>         [2]
>         [3]
>         <>
>         [4]
>         <>
>         [5]
>         <>

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 18:11:35 UTC